2:09 PM :: ::

8 Comments:

• 
  

  I dropped a post on this 'fine' article, too, before coming across your site.
  http://intelligentdiscontent.com/?p=210
  
  I'm glad that you saw it has a repeat of The Bell Curve, too...it sounded like I was reading the same thing.

  By  Anonymous, at January 04, 2006 4:56 AM  


• 
  

  Clearly you're an equality/ equity proponent. So am I but I think the article makes very valid points. There's no possible way (ever) especially in regard to education, that we can have an across the board understanding (by the students) and delivery of subject material (by the teachers), its just not. If you misread the argument, you might understand it to mean that by virtue of the poor being so, they are intrinsically stupid - not the case! It just means that the rich - and unfortunately often times blase - are privy to more than the poor are. With the risk of sounding like said rich and blase, I'll have to say that we have to understand the subtle dissimilarity between DIFFERENCE and INEQUALITY.

  By  MWICHIRIA, at January 04, 2006 1:05 PM  


• 
  

  mwichiria,
  thanks for commenting. i agree with you and i don't think he meant being poor means intrinsically stupid. I would have been okay (well maybe not okay, but less enraged) if he at least mentioned that focusing on the socioeconomic issues of poverty, i.e. healthcare, housing, nutrition etc would help move us in the right direction, I would have understood his point. I get that he thinks schools cannot close the gap in and of itself. however, just blatantly giving up on trying to close the achievement gap is just ridiculous

  By  KF, at January 04, 2006 4:57 PM  


• 
  

  So, on average, "intelligence," as measured with IQ tests, rises with SES. Likely true. IQ tests measure a particular set of skills and type of cognitive development, and while there's surely an innate component to it, we all know advantages accrue in the home. And, unlike some of the sources Seligman sites, I'm also willing to acknowledge that those skills/aptitudes will, to some degree, predict the liklihood of reaching the highest levels of achievement. BUT. What Seligman doesn't mention when he uses these arguments to criticize NCLB is that a kid doesn't need an IQ of 140 to learn the math, literacy, and critical thinking skills necessary for them to be a productive member of society.
  
  When masses of children are failing tests that measure basic skills (and which define "proficiency" at disturbingly low performance levels), we've got a national crisis. And when students' failure to understand basic concepts is concentrated in race-, language- and SES-segregated schools, with ill-prepared teachers and inferior school resources, we have a real moral problem.
  
  I'll agree that not every kid will score an 800 on the Physics SAT II. But that's not the gap that I'm concerned about-- I wish that that were the discussion, but right now we're not even in the ballpark. And the discussion about upper eschelon achievement has little bearing on whether every child can reach proficiency in the skills they'll need to survive in the world. We've got a long way to go to meet even that minimum standard... until we do, count me among those dedicated to "closing the gap."

  By  NMD, at January 04, 2006 6:20 PM  


• 
  

  I'd love to know if anyone would openly agree with his points if "African-Americans" and/or "Hispanics" or even just "minorities" was substituted for each reference.
  
  I would. I have no ideological impairment which hinders my ability to entertain the hypothesis that reproductively isolated population groups have over the course of history faced different selection pressures and that evolution didn't stop at the neck. In fact, when I read studies like Bruce Lahn's on the evolution of brain size and the allelic frequency distribution across different populations I think the hypothesis that groups differ from each other is entirely plausible. Here's the NYT on his paper:
  
  It had been widely assumed until recently that human evolution more or less stopped 50,000 years ago.
  
  The new finding, reported in today's issue of Science by Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, and colleagues, could raise controversy because of the genes' role in determining brain size. New versions of the genes, or alleles as geneticists call them, appear to have spread because they enhanced brain function in some way, the report suggests, and they are more common in some populations than others. . . .
  
  They report that with microcephalin, a new allele arose about 37,000 years ago, although it could have appeared as early as 60,000 or as late as 14,000 years ago. About 70 percent of people in most European and East Asian populations carry this allele of the gene, but it is much rarer in most sub-Saharan Africans.
  
  With the other gene, ASPM, a new allele emerged 14,100 to 500 years ago, the researchers favoring a midway date of 5,800 years. The allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and is found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples.
  
  Of course, if people have Creationist tendencies and think that Darwin and evolution are the devil's work then I could understand them ignoring the results coming out of genetics labs, but I think that the members of the "reality-based community" are going to have to come to terms with the science of human bio-diversity.
  
  I've made quite a number of comments over at JennyD's blog if you're interested in seeing what a Seligman defender has to say.

  By  TangoMan, at January 06, 2006 11:02 PM  


• 
  

  JW & KF,
  
  I obliged your call for comments and took the bait of JW's challenge and my comment has been sitting here for days unanswered.
  
  Isn't anyone interested in putting me in my place for supporting Seligman? Is the falsity of Seligman's position so self-evident that it doesn't need evidence or argument to counter it. Think how satisfying it would be to bolster your bona fides of being a progressive thinker by slamming the regressive concept of people(s) being shaped by genetics.
  
  On a related note, has anyone actually read The Bell Curve, or are people commenting on their perceptions of the book which are based on hearsay?
  
  I apologize for the snarky tone but when the original post is structured as a means of portraying KF as being more enlightened and superior to Seligman, basically attacking someone else in order to declare that you're not a throwback like them, well that just makes me want to call people to defend their positions. Anyone want to give it their best shot?

  By  TangoMan, at January 09, 2006 9:33 PM  


• 
  

  Tangoman,
  my apologies for not replying sooner..thank you for your comments and for reading our blog. Here are some of my thoughts in response to your posts:
  1) I read the entire NYT article in which you had pulled quotes from(as well as your comments on JennyD's blog which I will get to in a minute), and I was confused how your argument stemmed from this article. In the article, the study's author, Dr. Lahn makes of point of stating that, "data and such other findings do not necessarily lead to prejudice for or against any particular population". Another scientist states that "one should strongly resist the conclusion that it [the allele] has to do with brain size". While I found the study very interesting, it really does not talk about intelligence or brain size being attributed to race or a specific population. It does however mention that East Asia and European populations may have adapted this allele because they colonized in colder climates...
  2) In your comments to JennyD posts, you attempt to refute her statement about high poverty kids getting the least effective teaching by comparing U.S children to children in the Holocaust or Cambodia's killing fields. I am not seeing the link. It's like comparing apples and oranges...how does the holocaust or survivors of the cultural revolution in China prove that low ses kids in the U.S should be doing better in school?
  3) I do however, agree with your post on JennyD where you both agree that the argument would be better if it was between IQ and socioeconomic status. Low income children come into school with disadvantages such as poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, a deficit in vocabulary words, etc...Like I said previously, if Seligman had argued that we need to deal with the ramifications of low SES on student's success in school, before we close the achievement gap, that's one thing. Seligman however doesn't say anything close to that. He just states that we should give up and that it's pointless to try. Why not argue for early start programs, housing or job initiatives, or any other innovative idea that would address the challenges that low socioeconomic children face? (besides the fact, that low ses children do indeed overcome their environments and achieve high levels of education). Instead, Seligman just gives a blanket statement about how it's impossible to even think about closing the achievement gap. The argument itself on his part, is lacking.
  4) My intentions were not to sound elitist nor self-righteous. If you felt that tone in my post, then please know that I never mean to sound that way.
  p.s. I have read the Bell Curve...

  By  KF, at January 11, 2006 12:29 PM  


• 
  

  JW & KF,
  
  Thank you both for your thoughtful replies. Before I get to the specifics of my response, I'd like to state that I think educators need to start coming to terms with population group differences that are being documented on a regular basis by geneticists the world over. To recognize that evolution still has an effect upon humans and further that it doesn't magically stop at the neck is going to play an increasingly larger role in our new genomic age.
  
  to the discovery of a single allele that appeared tens of thousands of years ago?
  
  No, of course not. This was just one example. I'm sure that you're aware of the Human Genome Project, but much less well know is the International Haplotype Map Project which just last year released its results. They sampled populations from Nigeria, Japan, China, and Caucasions from Utah with no admitxture in their familes over the last 5 generations. The point of the HapMap project was to look for genetic differences between the groups. The project has yielded a treasure trove of useful data.
  
  Here's an example:
  
  
  These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele.
  
  
  It should go without saying that there is still a huge amount of the genome that needs to be analyzed but already we know that race is NOT simply about differences that are skin deep. Of course, we need to constantly remind people that this in no way implies any sort of superiority or deficiency, but simply a difference. For instance, there are large sections of Africa where the people are completely lactose intolerant, so sending milk as part of the food aid is pointless. Conversely, lactose tolerance is near uniform in Northern Europe. I could literally go on all day highlighting racial differences, like increased salt intolerance in Blacks leading to higher rates of hypertension and heart disease, or the through the roof rates of diabetes in Pima Indians, or how people of Asian descent are up to 7 times more likely to be struck by Myelodysplastic Syndrome, a bone marrow disorder.
  
  All of the above genetic patterns resulted from an evolutionary process, in which the groups were reproductively isolated and responding to selection pressures found in their environments. The alleles associated with cognition are not immune to these pressures. Of course, creationists will argue with this whole line of reasoning, but thankfully they are laughed out of scientific discussions.
  
  Where's the evidence that this allele is positively and significantly indicative of cognitive ability?
  
  I'm privy to pre-publication data so I can't directly answer your question with regards to these particular alleles, but as I wrote above, these are just two alleles. What was startling to skeptics was that there was a differential distribution sharply demarcated by race. That's the take home point that scientists took from the research. To answer your general question, you can find a broader, but by no means exhaustive, review in this report.
  
  Furthermore, how can you account for the widening and narrowing of the achievement gap
  
  The gap can change depending on the metric used. State achievement tests are notorious for being gamed, for lowering the threshold so a large percentage of students pass the proficiency hurdle. Heavily g-loaded IQ tests are immune to this type of gamesmanship and are more stable over the years. The achievement gap has narrowed slightly over the last few decades in part due to better nutritional care provided to young black children. Micronutrients and breast feeding have very powerful effects on IQ. Apart from these slight gains, the gap in IQ remains fairly stable. It's always important to keep in mind that were talking about normal distributions here, with the distributions overlapping racial groups. Just because a student is black, white, jewish, asian, etc doesn't mean we can automatically infer anything about the student on the basis of their race. There are over 7 million African Americans with IQs higher than the caucasion mean. For over a century now, the IQ gaps between groups has remained very stable - African American - 85, Hispanic 90, Caucasion 100, NE Asian 106, Jewish 115. These tests have been validated every which way, cross checked against international samples not subject to influence from American culture, and these results hold up internationally and remain very stable. That's the consensus position of the American Pyschological Association, no less. The most encouraging progress on raising IQ has been found in Africa and involved micronutrients and breastfeeding. Baby formula is less prevalent these days than it was before.
  
  do not necessarily lead to prejudice for or against any particular population"
  
  The researcher is correct. He doesn't want his research used by Nazis to argue for racial superiority and their other twisted dreams. There is a huge difference between prejudice and simple statement of fact. My continual thesis statement is that once an issue is identified then approaches tailored to the issue can be crafted. If you ignore the issue, then the practices of the profession are directed at some hypothetical view of reality and of course, desired results are never achieved.
  
  how does the holocaust or survivors of the cultural revolution in China prove that low ses kids in the U.S should be doing better in school?
  
  This is a modest rephrasing of my point. I don't disagree with what you wrote here - low SES kids should do better. I'm all for that.
  
  However, to attribute the problem entirely to teachers, their incompetence, curricula, textbooks, or what have you is, in my opinion, a dodge, for it obviates any student/family responsibility. Further, my line of reasoning at JennyD's was used to counter the argument that the children and families are blameless because the brutal environment found in low SES neighborhoods is truly the impediment that blocks these children from performing to higher standards. I would argue that the brutality found in the examples I listed, and the psychic scarring it inflicted on the children, is far, far worse than the conditions found in American low SES neighborhoods. Yet, those children performed to higher standards. The point - it's not the brutality of the environment which is the predominant factor producing poor school results.
  
  Why not argue for early start programs, housing or job initiatives, or any other innovative idea that would address the challenges that low socioeconomic children face?
  
  One of the fiercest critics of The Bell Curve, Nobel prize winning economist, James Heckman wrote a scathing review of the book and then set out on a 10 year research program (I can provide the links if you're interested) and his recent conclusion was not too far removed from what the Bell Curve authors wrote 10 years ago. Heckman found that while Head Start raises the social skills of its young participants, and that these skills are important in life, that it had a very transitory effect upon IQ and even the small gains achieved in the pre-school years vanished shortly after the kids started school. Frankly, this isn't surprising, for geneticists know that heritability increases as we get older. A baby's environment is completely controlled by their parents and so can be shaped quite thoroughly. As the child gets older they can influence their environment and by doing so they provide opportunity for their genetic make-up to express itself in behavior. There really is no way to create a situation where school age children have their environment as thoroughly controlled for them as when they were babies.
  
  Now, keep this in mind, the more we equalize environment, the greater the influence of the genetic differences. That makes sense, right? If the differences are a combination of genes and environment, then any differences between two groups are the result of a combination of these two factors. Equalize one factor, and the differences caused by the other factor are all that remain. That said, if people are prepared for differences to remain, but perhaps be diminished, one could take low SES children and subject them to an extensive, and ongoing, enrichment program which standardized their lives. For instance, the children could arrive at school at 7 am, all have the same breakfast, go to classes, take a break in the middle of the afternoon for team sports, alternating with music lessons, dance lessons, art lessons, etc, then go back to class until 5 pm, then have dinner, followed by supervised homework time, followed by TV time or play time, and then the parents pick them up at 9 pm and put the kids to bed. Quite extreme, but what it does is minimize parental influence, and provides standardized environmental inputs. This will work to minimize the environmental effects upon school performance, but at the end of the day we'll still be left with genetic factors. How feasible do you think this program is? I don't see many parents willing to stand for it.
  
  Speaking on a larger issue, a big part of the performance of Black children could be improved by improving the job conditions of their parents, providing more money to the household, etc, but these efforts are stymied by market forces which are clearing the market of low wage, low skill workers at very low wage levels. This is so because we have so many illegal immigrants providing competition in that labor market segment. The result, is that a survey from last year showed that over 25% of Black men, aged 15-64, not including homeless or those in prison, were idle for a year or longer. That's a huge crisis in the Black community and its rise coincides over the last few decades with the relaxation on enforcement of immigration statutes. The Republicans don't want to touch this issue for fear of being called racists and because their business constituency likes cheap labor, and probably prefers illegal hispanic labor to domestic black labor. Democrats don't want to touch this because of not wanting to anger their hispanic constituency, and because of cognitive dissonance - that is they prefer to frame themselves as enlightened in some fashion and to be for immigration control would cast them into the role of bigots or racists, which they want to avoid at all costs, so unfortunately the Black community pays a price.
  
  The upshot on these larger societal issues, is that if low SES family structure changes, then the environmental influence that affects school performance can be improved. We need far, far less single mother headed households, and that's not for any moral or religious reasons, simply because a two family home is more stable for the children and this results in better academic performance. More money in the household provides more opportunity to invest in enrichment activities for the children. However, more money in the household could also mean more money for Air Jordans, cell phones, etc and no money for books, piano lessons, etc. It's a hard call.
  
  If you think the ideal solution is more money for community programs, then you need to contend with the smaller gains they provide, compared to improved home life, and the countereffects the kids will receive from dysfunctional homes, such as single parents, absent fathers, or idle fathers, idleness increasing the incentive to commit crime and how this affects the children and their perceptions.
  
  So, I'm with Seligman here. If you don't tackle the structural problems that give rise to low SES, then there really is little to be done. If there is support for structual reform then the Black community in particular can benefit, but probably only marginally, but even this however, is an improvement worth pursuing because these are our fellow citizen's prospects we're improving.
  
  that low ses children do indeed overcome their environments and achieve high levels of education)
  
  If you mean that some children overcome, I completely agree.
  
  My intentions were not to sound elitist nor self-righteous.
  
  OK, as your comment indicates, you do in fact take this issue seriously and have a sophisticated opinion on the matter. I apologize, but in my defense, I continually encounter liberal (and I don't know your politics and am not implying anything about your politics) statements which are entirely framed so that they make themselves feel better by portraying themselves as being more enlightened, more sophisticated, than neandrathal conservatives. I've encountered more liberals than I can count, who have never read The Bell Curve, but slam it so that they can proclaim to all that they wear the badge of the anit-racist (completely unaware that one author was Jewish and the other married a woman of Thai ancestry and has bi-racial children) and are better than geneticists who are aware of population group differences and their real world implications. To simply study group differences must mean people are tuning in to their inner klansman.
  
  LOL, sorry for the length of the post, but I think educators are a crucial audience to reach with the implications of the science of genetics.
  
  how does your allele hypothesis account for the part of the population who are multiracial?
  
  Geneticists don't treat races as discreet, platonic ideals. There aren't any genes which are 100% Asian or Black. Admixture doesn't obviate the concept of race, any more than it does the concept of family. I go into a more thorough description of this point in this post - if you're time pressed you can skip over the citations that pepper the beginning of the post and skip to the big block of text I wrote at the bottom. I think that that will answer your question. You can also consider the fact that a computer can sort your genetic data into your self identified racial group with near 100% accuracy. It does so by sampling the correlation structure of your genome.
  
  Let me know if I'm not making myself clear in any of the above commentary. Thanks for the dialogue.

  By  TangoMan, at January 11, 2006 4:57 PM